Say what you want. I like Scalia.

[BamaFanNKy]

YouTube - Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LOGpnbZrMk)

[Distinguished Gentleman]

Seems pretty reasonable.

[nate895]

The first part shows his agreeable starting point. The second part is where he contradicts that starting point. Most of the rest is personal stuff.

[low preference guy]

Are you familiar with Gonzalez V. Raich?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[BamaFanNKy]

Are you familiar with Gonzalez V. Raich?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

And? His point is valid:

"Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”[7]

I'm guessing his argument was not all the medical marijuana was grown locally thus, the interstate commerce clause applied.

[ChickenHawk]

Are you familiar with Gonzalez V. Raich?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Certainly not his finest work. On balance Scalia is still far better than most. Clarence Thomas is still the the best.

[ChickenHawk]

And? His point is valid:


I'm guessing his argument was not all the medical marijuana was grown locally thus, the interstate commerce clause applied.

I don't think his point is totally outlandish but I still disagree with it.

[low preference guy]

And? His point is valid:


I'm guessing his argument was not all the medical marijuana was grown locally thus, the interstate commerce clause applied.

Raich grew marijuana on his own house for his own consumption, without selling it to anyone. In other words, his action was intrastate non-commerce, and Scalia ruled against him using the interstate commerce clause. I don't know how anyone can get more ridiculous than that... and you agree with him?

If you want to find an OK judge, your only choice is Clarence Thomas, who dissented:


Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

and


If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

Someone asked Nancy Pelosi what in the Constitution gave Congress authority to pass health care. Guess what she answered. The commerce clause. You can thank Scalia's nonsensical interpretation of the Commerce Clause for that.

[Kotin]

raich grew marijuana on his own house for his own consumption, without selling it to anyone. In other words, his action was intrastate non-commerce, and scalia ruled against him using the interstate commerce clause. I don't know how anyone can get more ridiculous than that... And you agree with him?

If you want to find an ok judge, your only choice is clarence thomas, who dissented:



And



someone asked nancy pelosi what in the constitution gave congress authority to pass health care. Guess what she answered. the commerce clause. You can thank scalia's nonsensical interpretation of the commerce clause for that.

+1000

[BamaFanNKy]

Raich grew marijuana on his own house for his own consumption, without selling it to anyone. In other words, his action was intrastate non-commerce, and Scalia ruled against him using the interstate commerce clause. I don't know how anyone can get more ridiculous than that... and you agree with him?

If you want to find an OK judge, your only choice is Clarence Thomas, who dissented:



and



Someone asked Nancy Pelosi what in the Constitution gave Congress authority to pass health care. Guess what she answered. The commerce clause. You can thank Scalia's nonsensical interpretation of the Commerce Clause for that.

Again, depends on how you answered Scalia. His lawyers must of messed up the case. Only way Scalia would not have dissented.

[low preference guy]

Again, depends on how you answered Scalia. His lawyers must of messed up the case. Only way Scalia would not have dissented.

How come Clarence Thomas dissented?

Look again as Scalia's argument, the one you quoted. It literally said it's ok to use interstate commerce law to stop intrastate non-commerce. If it was a liberal the one who said that, you'll be laughing at them. The Constitution is pretty straight forward, as Clarence Thomas explains in his dissent. Commerce means commerce, you can't just make commerce mean non-commerce.

[Mini-Me]

How come Clarence Thomas dissented?

Look again as Scalia's argument, the one you quoted. It literally said it's ok to use interstate commerce law to stop intrastate non-commerce. If it was a liberal the one who said that, you'll be laughing at them. The Constitution is pretty straight forward, as Clarence Thomas explains in his dissent. Commerce means commerce, you just can't make commerce mean non-commerce.

Above and beyond that, the Commerce Clause was not even intended to arbitrarily regulate people doing business across state lines; it was about giving the federal government the power to prevent the individual states from erecting trade barriers (tariffs, etc.) against each other. Just think about the implications of that for a second: The states were intended to be so much more independent and sovereign than they are today, that the Framers explicitly granted the federal government the power to keep them from erecting trade barriers against each other. Even using the Commerce Clause to regulate gigantic corporations spanning all fifty states would be a sizable stretch beyond the original intent and meaning...so using it to give edicts to some guy growing pot for himself, is just jaw-droppingly absurd.

Considering Scalia's job is essentially to enforce the Constitution with respect to the rest of the government, he's doing an awful job...which is made even more pitiful by most of the other justices somehow managing to be even worse hacks than he is. The entire Supreme Court is worse than worthless.

[low preference guy]

Scalia is to the Constitution as a neocon is to limited government.

[angelatc]

McCain said that Scalia was too conservative. He might not be perfect, but that right there makes him acceptable in my book.

[low preference guy]

McCain said that Scalia was too conservative. He might not be perfect, but that right there makes him acceptable in my book.

For McCain, Bush was too dovish on foreign policy. I guess that makes Bush acceptable in my book.

[Scofield]

Scalia doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution. Every decision he makes he does so on his own ideological principles. And it just so happens to be that his principles are completely misguided.

He's also a raging homophobe.

[angelatc]

For McCain, Bush was too dovish on foreign policy. I guess that makes Bush acceptable in my book.

Did McCain actually say that?

Scalia didn't set the precedent for the interstate commerce clause.

Just because I disagree with a person on a single issue doesn't make him absolutely unsuited to live on the same planet I do.

[bobbyw24]

Under the Constitution, there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. We are just one race in the eyes of government.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0515_0200_ZS.html

[RokiLothbard]

And? His point is valid:


I'm guessing his argument was not all the medical marijuana was grown locally thus, the interstate commerce clause applied.

I'm guessing his point is that he doesn't like MJ, therefore his principles all go out the window.

[Krugerrand]

He's not the worst to don the robe .... but he's certainly not the best either.

[misterx]

This is the man who said it's alright for police to look inside your home with x-ray type equipment without a warrant.

[mczerone]

I've read many of the decisions that he was credited with writing, and I must say that he is the only SCOTUS justice to have made me laugh out loud at an intentional joke (I've also laughed at the sheer economic stupidity of some other opinions).

So he is a "favorite" justice of mine on one level - but I rarely agree with his decisions. Occasionally I'll concur (agree with the result, but not his reasoning).

[constituent]

yea, say what you want...

[low preference guy]

Scalia didn't set the precedent for the interstate commerce clause.


What? Gonzalez vs. Raich didn't set a precedent about the commerce clause?

[AuH2O]

What? Gonzalez vs. Raich didn't set a precedent about the commerce clause?

It set A precedent, but not the broad expansive interpretation which is currently in effect. I haven't read Gonzalez, but I imagine it's a pretty close rehashing of Wickard.

[winston_blade]

It set A precedent, but not the broad expansive interpretation which is currently in effect. I haven't read Gonzalez, but I imagine it's a pretty close rehashing of Wickard.

It is a re-hash of Wickard, but people were hoping that the US v. Lopez (1995) would bring forth a more restrictive application of the commerce clause.

[Kilrain]

He's miles behind Clarence Thomas. Better than most current justices, but that's not saying all that much.

[low preference guy]

It set A precedent, but not the broad expansive interpretation which is currently in effect. I haven't read Gonzalez, but I imagine it's a pretty close rehashing of Wickard.

But Scalia let the precedent stay! The Supreme Court is the only instance where wrong precedence can be changed! They are there to ensure that the Constitution has precedence over liberal made up law, and Scalia didn't fulfill his function. And these is not a minor issue, the commerce clause is what is used to justify passing universal health care.

[zade]

He's miles behind Clarence Thomas. Better than most current justices, but that's not saying all that much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safford_United_School_District_No._1_v._Redding#Co ncurring_in_the_judgment_in_part_and_dissenting_in _part

i can't forgive thomas

[johnrocks]

Certainly not his finest work. On balance Scalia is still far better than most. Clarence Thomas is still the the best.

Clarence Thomas is my favorite too.

[james1906]

From O'Connor:


"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."

[Imperial]

If you want to find an OK judge, your only choice is Clarence Thomas, who dissented

Problem is that Clarence Thomas has some extremely stupid decisions too.